SACWG Group Discussion – notes from 21st November 2012
Credit and classification: where are we going?
NB These are from the morning session of the event and do not claim to be comprehensive.
Group A
· Compensation and condonement (of course!). As reported elsewhere, there quite of lot of variation in terms of amount (if any), at what level and whether some (core) modules were non-compensatory. Continuing discussion revealed the extent to which an institution's regulations interacted with a "dove" or "hawkish" use of compensation - for instance in allowing students to complete a qualification with the normal overall number of credits, allowing students to undertake additional credits at later stages of their programme, and the amount they could be re-assessed.
· There was discussion of the shelf life of credit, both in terms of credit transfer students, but also students moving slowly through the same programme. In the latter case was the student's existing credit was actually reviewed? Or was a maximum period of registration for a qualification used to highlight this?
· Most members of this group had been through reviews of their credit frameworks within their institutions in recent years. It tended to confirm what has already become apparent - larger standard size modules; a move away from semesters; less flexibility for students with a small number of modules offered and more core modules with a consequent restriction or removal of Joint degrees (except, it was reported, at Keele).
Group B
Group B concentrated on questions:the following areas were covered:
1. Grade Point Averages (US style) – what was the system, which were the universities undertaking a trial, what are the specific advantages and disadvantages as compared to the honours classification system?
2. Was there anything to be gained from moving from a marks based system (0-100) to a low resolution grades based system (A, B, C, D, E, F(ail) grades with no other possibility of discrimination i.e. any B+ etc).Specifically:
· were there ways of using this to ‘spread out’ subjects which typically bunch marks
· is this the end of compensation/condonement since there is no marginal fail – just fail?
3. On the practice dropping low scoring modules in degree classification, questions were raised as to whether there were serious objections – are we looking for averages or indicators of excellence, there were adverse behavioural effects of an early fail with capping, human performance varies and the scheme should make allowances.
4. What are the policies and practices on preventing students from building intermediate awards en route to a degree.Under what circumstances is transfer of credit allowed and under what circumstances is transfer of marks and credit allowed?
5. With varying practice on reassessment i.e. discretionary reassessment through to entitlement to three reassessments, does this cause problems for the circumstance under which credit is gained.
Group C
The group ranged widely. Among the issues in no order of significance raised were:
Should compensation/condonement (c/c) be exercised at all levels - both UG and PG?
Ø As was expected, one institution’s compensation was another’s condonement.
Ø Some institutions restricted c/c to Level 4 and thought it inappropriate that it should be allowed at Levels 5 and 6. There seemed to be a consensus that there isn’t - and shouldn’t be – c/c for PGT awards.
Leeds allows a limited amount of c/c for non-core modules but includes the grades in the Honours degree calculation.
Ø Implicit in the discussion was the question of what the educational (and other) purposes of c/c are.
How far do credit systems give a false sense of commonality and consistency across the sector?
Ø There was considerable scepticism about the extent to which a 20 credit module in one institution or subject was the ‘same’ as a 20 credit module in another institution or even subject within the same institution.
Ø It was not clear whether it more important for there to be consistency across the sector, within institutions or within a course.
Ø One member suggested that the way is which reasonable adjustment is implemented is particularly prone to wide variations of practice.
Ø Externals Examiners are seen as not just the guardian of standards but also of consistency, at least in the course or subject or modules for which they are responsible. While one member of the group expressed doubt about the efficacy of the External Examiner system, others pointed to the ways in which their Externals play a positive and informed role in assuring consistency of standards.
Do we need credit?
Ø Given the variety of models in the UK, to say nothing of ECTS, the US and other systems across the world, the group started to question what credit added to HE and the students’ experience.
Ø One member highlighted credit’s importance for transfer from one course to another, especially into work-based learning programmes. No one, however, was able to comment on the volume of credit transfer that occurs. Some members felt it is still quite limited.
To what extent are assessment criteria the Cinderella of validation processes?
Ø There was concern that assessment criteria are rarely discussed as a part of institutions’ validation systems. Indeed, this reflected a tendency to regard assessment as the last element of a programme or module specification to be discussed, if it was discussed at all.
Ø Whatever criteria were adopted, it was agreed that the subjects’ marking cultures would probably be the key determinant of the grades awarded for assignments.
Group D
Quite a bit of discussion about the compensation/condonement issue. Is this a distinction without a practical difference? In that, to condone, there must be some justification which in most instances might be based on performances elsewhere. The suggestion was made that we need a new term that scoops up both.
The hours stated for study are notional, but have value in signalling to students something about the level of effort expected.
Suggested that institutions need more coherent assessment expectations – e.g 1 or 1.5 hour exams for the same nominal amount of assessment.
Frameworks are indicative not prescriptive. However, the basis for decisions needs to be made clear (and justified).
Joint/combined hons programmes present particular problems, but do tend to act as a brake on divergence. Students need a ‘home school’ to avoid not having an academic base. Personal mitigating circumstances need to be communicated across joint/combined programmes to avoid unfairness.
Some concern that a 40-credit project (=1/3 final year credit) could be high risk for some students. “Set up to fail”?
Also discussed - the issue of what criteria are used to determine condonement? (We know for compensation). It seems it's probably some variant of judgement related to the particular student's circumstances. Could one write a tight rule??
Group E
Table E expressed the following views (the questions were not all completed)
1. As noted or implied elsewhere the group was surprised by the amount of variation there is, just from one table, in terms of where and when c/c is implemented. The end consensus was that HEIs should step back from issuing c/c as it encourages students to lower their achievement or goals and students use c/c regulations to their own advantage. It was also expressed that of the two condonement is at least honest whereas compensation allows for the issuing of credit where LOs have not been achieved and without apology for this.
2. We were a harsh lot. The group/table struggled to justify discounting in any form other than perhaps 20 credits for year 2 students to enable them to take a risk on exploring a topic they might not be very good at.
3. The group was happy with established minor HE awards but frustrated by the (mis)use of terms like 'Certificate' and 'Diploma' when attached to irregular bundles of credit. Most felt that other than the regular versions of these HEIs should issue 'Certificate of Credit' awards for minor ...
4. An interesting one in relation to APL shelf life and rules about how long a student may remain registered on a course - clear examples of inconsistency when compared all around the tables' HEIs.
Page 3 of 3